Multi-crew Pilots Licence (formerly: South African Airway's plan to get co-pilots)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Kununurra!
Age: 35
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People have been going to the RHS with 200 hours for years from integrated courses, and indeed many modular guys do so too nowadays.
Except they have spent far longer than you doing just that in the same aircraft sim type as the aircraft that that they are now flying.
Better suited for the situation? Certainly.
Fair? Fairness has never entered the equation. If 1000 hours bashing around the country in a light aircraft is unnecessary, as many trainers believe, why bother.
Except they have spent far longer than you doing just that in the same aircraft sim type as the aircraft that that they are now flying.
Better suited for the situation? Certainly.
Fair? Fairness has never entered the equation. If 1000 hours bashing around the country in a light aircraft is unnecessary, as many trainers believe, why bother.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 603
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ICAO Adopts New Flight Simulator Training Rules
Flying Without Wings
Rule on Simulators Could Change How Pilots Are Trained
By Del Quentin Wilber
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 13, 2006; D01
Before stepping into the cockpit of a commercial jetliner for the first time, pilots have racked up hundreds of hours in the air, usually at the controls of small planes.
In coming years, they may get most of their flight experience without ever leaving the ground.
The international organization that sets the world's aviation regulations has adopted a new standard that could alter the nature of pilot training. In essence, prospective co-pilots will be able to earn most of their experience in ground-based simulators.
The move is designed to allow foreign airlines, especially those in Asia and the Middle East that face shortages of pilots, to more quickly train and hire flight crews. The United States isn't expected to adopt the new rules anytime soon, but international pilots trained under the new standards will be allowed to fly into and out of the country.
The change is generating some controversy. Safety experts and pilot groups question whether simulators -- which have long been hailed as an important training tool -- are good enough to replace critical early flight experience.
"In a simulator, you have pride at stake," said Dennis Dolan, president of the International Federation of Air Line Pilots' Associations, which has raised questions about the new standard. "In a real airplane, you have your life at stake."
Officials at the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), which is setting the new standards for pilot licensing, said the role of simulators has grown substantially in most airline training programs. Airlines often train co-pilots for new aircraft only in simulators, without flying; such a co-pilot's first flight on the new plane is with paying passengers on board.
The new rules apply only to co-pilots of commercial planes. Captains, who are in charge of those aircraft, must have hundreds more hours of flight experience. The new standards will allow people to become a co-pilot on a jetliner with about 70 hours of flight time and 170 hours in simulators. Other licenses require about 200 hours of flight experience. Co-pilots perform many of the same duties as captains.
In the United States, a co-pilot of a commercial plane must have at least 250 hours of experience, some of which can be earned in simulators, federal regulators said.
Each country sets its own licensing requirements, which can be tougher than the ICAO standards. The Federal Aviation Administration is not expected to adopt the new license in this country. But experts say that if the number of people learning to fly in the United States continues to drop, the FAA could be forced to adopt the rules.
The new standards allow airlines to more properly train and supervise young pilots before they develop bad habits at flight school or flying alone, industry officials said, adding that the devices better prepare pilots for today's sophisticated cockpits.
"Those hours flying solo in a single-engine piston airplane, they do us no good at the airlines, and we can't monitor the pilots," said Christian Schroeder, an official with the International Air Transport Association, a trade group that represents airlines. "We are training a better-qualified and safer pilot this way."
However, safety experts and pilots groups said pilots gain invaluable "white knuckle" experience during hundreds of hours of flight time in real planes. Flight crews also learn the intricacies and pressures of dealing with air-traffic controllers in congested air space -- conditions that are hard to replicate in simulators, the experts and pilots said.
In addition, no one has studied whether simulators can safely replace early flight experience, said Cass Howell, chairman of the department of aeronautical science at Embry Riddle Aeronautical University in Florida.
"There is no objective proof that this will be just as safe a method of training," Howell said. "At this point, nobody knows if this is an effective training method."
Still, Howell and others say simulators have helped make aviation far safer than it was just a few decades ago. Full-motion simulators with advanced computer graphics are exact replicas of airplane cockpits, down to the switches and circuit breakers.
The graphics displayed on cockpit windows have become so advanced that pilots can watch baggage carts rumble across taxiways and see wisps of clouds rush past their windows and even snow drift across tarmacs. Full-motion simulators -- giant boxes atop moving legs -- can toss crews around in bad turbulence and even duplicate the thud-thud-thudding of a jet streaking down a runway for takeoff.
Pilots use the devices to practice difficult approaches to airports, recovery from engine failure and what to do when they encounter extreme weather -- all scenarios that are too dangerous to attempt in an aircraft. The simulators also have become instrumental in teaching pilots about managing the increasingly complex and computerized cockpits of modern jets.
In the United States, simulators help pilots adjust to new aircraft and keep them up to date on safety measures. They also are used to teach pilots how to manage modern cockpit systems, how to work together and how to troubleshoot problems before they get out of hand.
"They allow us to teach our crews that there is more to flying an airplane than just the stick and rudder skills," said John T. Winter, director of United Airlines' training center in Denver.
Like most major carriers, United Airlines has a big training center, and instructors rely heavily on simulators to train pilots. On a recent afternoon, pilots Ron Davis and Jeff DePaolis took an Airbus A320 simulator through situations they could never attempt in a real plane because they are too dangerous.
In one simulator scenario, they were approaching Denver International Airport in poor visibility. Suddenly, about 600 feet above the ground, DePaolis noticed that the wind was rapidly shifting. He alerted Davis to the hazard. Then a computerized voice blared: "Wind shear! Wind shear!"
The cockpit jolted and felt as if it were falling. Davis pulled back on the control stick and shoved the throttles to full power. The plane throbbed and seemed to hover. Then, slowly, it inched safely back into the sky.
Rule on Simulators Could Change How Pilots Are Trained
By Del Quentin Wilber
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 13, 2006; D01
Before stepping into the cockpit of a commercial jetliner for the first time, pilots have racked up hundreds of hours in the air, usually at the controls of small planes.
In coming years, they may get most of their flight experience without ever leaving the ground.
The international organization that sets the world's aviation regulations has adopted a new standard that could alter the nature of pilot training. In essence, prospective co-pilots will be able to earn most of their experience in ground-based simulators.
The move is designed to allow foreign airlines, especially those in Asia and the Middle East that face shortages of pilots, to more quickly train and hire flight crews. The United States isn't expected to adopt the new rules anytime soon, but international pilots trained under the new standards will be allowed to fly into and out of the country.
The change is generating some controversy. Safety experts and pilot groups question whether simulators -- which have long been hailed as an important training tool -- are good enough to replace critical early flight experience.
"In a simulator, you have pride at stake," said Dennis Dolan, president of the International Federation of Air Line Pilots' Associations, which has raised questions about the new standard. "In a real airplane, you have your life at stake."
Officials at the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), which is setting the new standards for pilot licensing, said the role of simulators has grown substantially in most airline training programs. Airlines often train co-pilots for new aircraft only in simulators, without flying; such a co-pilot's first flight on the new plane is with paying passengers on board.
The new rules apply only to co-pilots of commercial planes. Captains, who are in charge of those aircraft, must have hundreds more hours of flight experience. The new standards will allow people to become a co-pilot on a jetliner with about 70 hours of flight time and 170 hours in simulators. Other licenses require about 200 hours of flight experience. Co-pilots perform many of the same duties as captains.
In the United States, a co-pilot of a commercial plane must have at least 250 hours of experience, some of which can be earned in simulators, federal regulators said.
Each country sets its own licensing requirements, which can be tougher than the ICAO standards. The Federal Aviation Administration is not expected to adopt the new license in this country. But experts say that if the number of people learning to fly in the United States continues to drop, the FAA could be forced to adopt the rules.
The new standards allow airlines to more properly train and supervise young pilots before they develop bad habits at flight school or flying alone, industry officials said, adding that the devices better prepare pilots for today's sophisticated cockpits.
"Those hours flying solo in a single-engine piston airplane, they do us no good at the airlines, and we can't monitor the pilots," said Christian Schroeder, an official with the International Air Transport Association, a trade group that represents airlines. "We are training a better-qualified and safer pilot this way."
However, safety experts and pilots groups said pilots gain invaluable "white knuckle" experience during hundreds of hours of flight time in real planes. Flight crews also learn the intricacies and pressures of dealing with air-traffic controllers in congested air space -- conditions that are hard to replicate in simulators, the experts and pilots said.
In addition, no one has studied whether simulators can safely replace early flight experience, said Cass Howell, chairman of the department of aeronautical science at Embry Riddle Aeronautical University in Florida.
"There is no objective proof that this will be just as safe a method of training," Howell said. "At this point, nobody knows if this is an effective training method."
Still, Howell and others say simulators have helped make aviation far safer than it was just a few decades ago. Full-motion simulators with advanced computer graphics are exact replicas of airplane cockpits, down to the switches and circuit breakers.
The graphics displayed on cockpit windows have become so advanced that pilots can watch baggage carts rumble across taxiways and see wisps of clouds rush past their windows and even snow drift across tarmacs. Full-motion simulators -- giant boxes atop moving legs -- can toss crews around in bad turbulence and even duplicate the thud-thud-thudding of a jet streaking down a runway for takeoff.
Pilots use the devices to practice difficult approaches to airports, recovery from engine failure and what to do when they encounter extreme weather -- all scenarios that are too dangerous to attempt in an aircraft. The simulators also have become instrumental in teaching pilots about managing the increasingly complex and computerized cockpits of modern jets.
In the United States, simulators help pilots adjust to new aircraft and keep them up to date on safety measures. They also are used to teach pilots how to manage modern cockpit systems, how to work together and how to troubleshoot problems before they get out of hand.
"They allow us to teach our crews that there is more to flying an airplane than just the stick and rudder skills," said John T. Winter, director of United Airlines' training center in Denver.
Like most major carriers, United Airlines has a big training center, and instructors rely heavily on simulators to train pilots. On a recent afternoon, pilots Ron Davis and Jeff DePaolis took an Airbus A320 simulator through situations they could never attempt in a real plane because they are too dangerous.
In one simulator scenario, they were approaching Denver International Airport in poor visibility. Suddenly, about 600 feet above the ground, DePaolis noticed that the wind was rapidly shifting. He alerted Davis to the hazard. Then a computerized voice blared: "Wind shear! Wind shear!"
The cockpit jolted and felt as if it were falling. Davis pulled back on the control stick and shoved the throttles to full power. The plane throbbed and seemed to hover. Then, slowly, it inched safely back into the sky.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: head in the clouds
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although , no i am not yet a pilot ( still a trainee ... not under MCPL, nor would i ever be, i have some pride after all ) , i feel i must express alarm about this as well, for a number of reasons. the most previlant of them has to be safety, not only of the aircraft crewed by FO's of such .. abbrevated exprence, but of other aircraft in the vacinity, ...... i am not sure i would want to be under the flight path of one of them either .
Reading anicdotes from a couple of people earlier in the thread about "similerly trained" crew not being able to answer questions that boil down to "where are you" is alarming. instriments and computers are not right all the time, ( the first thing that comes into my mind is the mt erebus .. * ahem* incident.) and being able to get down intact is the biggest thing when something goes wrong.
are sims useful, .. hell yes, i doubt anyone is saying otherwise. best place for emergancy procedures training. but they are not enough on their own.
if my training provider tried to tell me that live flight time was not needed, or downgraded it from how much they give ( yes .. about 200 hrs ... and at the end of that, yes a " frozen ATPL ", which my understanding is more just permission to come back and do the check flight when you get your experence up to the task .... at the end of which i will not be ready to sit right seat in a heavy. period.) i would be looking for a new training provider.
then again, i seem to have the intention to be a "self improver" as it has been put a few times. i have heard that pilots with glider experence are usualy good for when the manure meets the air displacement device ... and this is not just from a single source, so i have to concider this nessercery self improvement. not just for flying heavys.
and yes i might be rambling, but for those who are going to tell me thats irrelivent, what happens in your multi engine heavy's when all the engines flame out, 'cause some muppet didn't load the fuil correctly. its happened. or so i am told.
200 hrs gonna prep me for that? i don't think so
Reading anicdotes from a couple of people earlier in the thread about "similerly trained" crew not being able to answer questions that boil down to "where are you" is alarming. instriments and computers are not right all the time, ( the first thing that comes into my mind is the mt erebus .. * ahem* incident.) and being able to get down intact is the biggest thing when something goes wrong.
are sims useful, .. hell yes, i doubt anyone is saying otherwise. best place for emergancy procedures training. but they are not enough on their own.
if my training provider tried to tell me that live flight time was not needed, or downgraded it from how much they give ( yes .. about 200 hrs ... and at the end of that, yes a " frozen ATPL ", which my understanding is more just permission to come back and do the check flight when you get your experence up to the task .... at the end of which i will not be ready to sit right seat in a heavy. period.) i would be looking for a new training provider.
then again, i seem to have the intention to be a "self improver" as it has been put a few times. i have heard that pilots with glider experence are usualy good for when the manure meets the air displacement device ... and this is not just from a single source, so i have to concider this nessercery self improvement. not just for flying heavys.
and yes i might be rambling, but for those who are going to tell me thats irrelivent, what happens in your multi engine heavy's when all the engines flame out, 'cause some muppet didn't load the fuil correctly. its happened. or so i am told.
200 hrs gonna prep me for that? i don't think so
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oat
was having a look round oat in march and they were talking about the MPL as a possiblility for this coming spring? Any 1 no of any more news about this? Apparently you will need to be signed on to an airline first?
Training - No need to fly solo
Reported on Flight's website. An ab initio course for a Multi-crew Pilots Licence (MPL) where the student will never fly solo http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...rew-pilot.html
I suppose that if you're never going to fly solo what's the point, but as for a confidence booster, your first solo is a pretty big milestone on your way to getting a licence.
I suppose that if you're never going to fly solo what's the point, but as for a confidence booster, your first solo is a pretty big milestone on your way to getting a licence.
My whole working life has been dedicated to aviation.
I have trained many military pilots on a wide range of multiengined transport aircraft through to high performance jet aircraft. In more recent years I have trained many airline S/Os, F/Os and Captains on a variety of widebody airline aircraft.
The MPL system is based soley on political expediency and airline economics. Most changes to pilot training over the years have been based on training excellence and safety.
It is my firm belief that if the MPL system is implemented, it will result, sometime down the track, in the unnecessary loss of hundreds if not thousands of innocent lives.
I hope that I am proven to be wrong...
I have trained many military pilots on a wide range of multiengined transport aircraft through to high performance jet aircraft. In more recent years I have trained many airline S/Os, F/Os and Captains on a variety of widebody airline aircraft.
The MPL system is based soley on political expediency and airline economics. Most changes to pilot training over the years have been based on training excellence and safety.
It is my firm belief that if the MPL system is implemented, it will result, sometime down the track, in the unnecessary loss of hundreds if not thousands of innocent lives.
I hope that I am proven to be wrong...
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think flex is correct.
But of course the Airline Managers etc want this new system not just for the supposed cost savings but because they will then have a bunch of pilots over which they will have total control. These "pilots" would and will have great difficulty in moving to another flying position with another company.
But of course the Airline Managers etc want this new system not just for the supposed cost savings but because they will then have a bunch of pilots over which they will have total control. These "pilots" would and will have great difficulty in moving to another flying position with another company.
In an anonymous forum, it is likely that in discussions like this one on the MPL concept, for there to be a number of folks with undeclared vested interests who might well manipulate and cloud the real underlying issues, to their advantage.
Let's face the facts; the MPL concept has been driven by airlines who are becoming desperately short of pilots and want to reduce training and wage costs. The MPL will legally allow them to put warm bodies in cockpit seats in a much reduced timescale at a much reduced cost, and will allow the selection of warm bodies that would not otherwise qualify to be professional pilots.
Safety in aviation is a legacy born of bitter experience that has shaped the selection, training, experience, performance, discipline and punishment systems and processes over many years.
Experience gained through the early years of a pilot's career is very efficient in weeding out most unsuitable pilots by either killing them in aviation accidents, or preventing them from further advancement by denying them further aviation jobs due to poor performance.
To dump these systems and processes based on a century of aviation experience and replace them instead with a new system driven by political expediency and economics is ill-advised to say the least.
If I have discovered one thing about aviation over many years, is that it sometimes lets you get away with taking shortcuts for indeterminite periods.
However, in the long run, aviation is unrelenting and merciless in punishing all folk who are prone to taking shortcuts, along with the innocent travelling public who may be in their care.
Let's face the facts; the MPL concept has been driven by airlines who are becoming desperately short of pilots and want to reduce training and wage costs. The MPL will legally allow them to put warm bodies in cockpit seats in a much reduced timescale at a much reduced cost, and will allow the selection of warm bodies that would not otherwise qualify to be professional pilots.
Safety in aviation is a legacy born of bitter experience that has shaped the selection, training, experience, performance, discipline and punishment systems and processes over many years.
Experience gained through the early years of a pilot's career is very efficient in weeding out most unsuitable pilots by either killing them in aviation accidents, or preventing them from further advancement by denying them further aviation jobs due to poor performance.
To dump these systems and processes based on a century of aviation experience and replace them instead with a new system driven by political expediency and economics is ill-advised to say the least.
If I have discovered one thing about aviation over many years, is that it sometimes lets you get away with taking shortcuts for indeterminite periods.
However, in the long run, aviation is unrelenting and merciless in punishing all folk who are prone to taking shortcuts, along with the innocent travelling public who may be in their care.
Paxing All Over The World
Flexible
I could not agree more and found the same to be true in an unrelated field. If I have discovered one thing about telecommunications over many years, is that it sometimes lets you get away with taking shortcuts for indeterminate periods.
I recall the manager of a telephone system at financial firm in the City of London. Over the years, having a small amount of knowledge, he tinkered around with the system and it always worked. One day - he tinkered and the whole system was off the air for a day. No one died but they lost a lot of moeny and he was out on his ear. The cause and effect is the same.
As a pax who often travels to South Africa, this will affect my purchases in the future. The difficulty will be to know which carriers are using MPL. I shall have to rely on PPRuNe for that.
If I have discovered one thing about aviation over many years, is that it sometimes lets you get away with taking shortcuts for indeterminite periods.
I recall the manager of a telephone system at financial firm in the City of London. Over the years, having a small amount of knowledge, he tinkered around with the system and it always worked. One day - he tinkered and the whole system was off the air for a day. No one died but they lost a lot of moeny and he was out on his ear. The cause and effect is the same.
As a pax who often travels to South Africa, this will affect my purchases in the future. The difficulty will be to know which carriers are using MPL. I shall have to rely on PPRuNe for that.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: scandinavia
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a pax who often travels to South Africa, this will affect my purchases in the future. The difficulty will be to know which carriers are using MPL. I shall have to rely on PPRuNe for that.
@FlexibleResponse: I look foreward to prove you wrong!
Paxing All Over The World
snuble The problem is that, for the most part, I shall not know! However, some carriers that have such a person in place will have made sure that they meet certain (dare I say 'traditional') criteria and other carriers will have grabbed what was left over.
In the same way that I might try to understand the purchasing standards and process of a supermarket chain, so I might I try to understand that of the airlines I choose.
In the same way that I might try to understand the purchasing standards and process of a supermarket chain, so I might I try to understand that of the airlines I choose.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is highly likely that the first adopters of the MPL will be the major European airlines that currently run their own cadet training schemes - airlines like Lufthansa, for example. Such airlines are very unlikely to accept a lower standard of cadet than they do currently. It's my understanding that it is airlines such as these that have driven the development of the MPL, as they feel that the traditional training syllabus is getting further and further detached from the requirements of flying modern airliners.
As has been explained earlier in this thread, the MPL is very unlikely to be a cheap option. The number of hours required in highly-capable and expensive simulators is likely to make the cost comparable to, or even higher than, the current procedure. While it is true that some of the danger will be removed (this is a bad thing?!), I don't perceive the death rate among airline wannabes is so high as to be a significant factor in the selection process!
As in all new things, there will be early adopters, late adopters and Luddites. The early adopters will have to iron out the problems that will undoubtedly be discovered with experience - experience which the later adopters will bvenefit from. For the Luddites, the traditional route will still be available.
As has been explained earlier in this thread, the MPL is very unlikely to be a cheap option. The number of hours required in highly-capable and expensive simulators is likely to make the cost comparable to, or even higher than, the current procedure. While it is true that some of the danger will be removed (this is a bad thing?!), I don't perceive the death rate among airline wannabes is so high as to be a significant factor in the selection process!
As in all new things, there will be early adopters, late adopters and Luddites. The early adopters will have to iron out the problems that will undoubtedly be discovered with experience - experience which the later adopters will bvenefit from. For the Luddites, the traditional route will still be available.
Metrosexual
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Enroute
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But you are happy to fly with a 200tt self improver, fresh form the cheapest trto he/she could find...?
These guys, the 200hr TT 'self improver' and MPL wonders will be flying around, not knowing enough to know what they don't know.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: WTF? Which city is this?!
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To all you guys whith MPL as your wet dream:
What you seem to forget is that you cannot compare a MPL/737 with a guy with 200hrs SEP. Once the 200hr guy have got his 737 rating, THEN we can start discussing who's the "best" pilot.
The standards for the MPL 737 rating is all the same as the "normal" 737 rating. In other words the 200hr guy is trained to the same "perfection"/proficiency as the MPL guy, but in addition he has 200hrs of real flying time, incl all the descition making etc that comes with that.
Those of you who say instructing in a 172 for 1000hrs is a waste of time, don't understand much. Most likely your one of those 200hr guys who bought yourself a job in some LCC.
Sure, flying a 172 is not too relevant for pushing buttons on the 737 or 319, but flying is not all about flying the 'bus on autopilot, but more about making decisions. And what do you base your desicions on? Knowlegde and experience. Where do you get that knowlegde and experience? By flying! So all the decsicion making and responsibilities you learn by 1000hrs in the sky, is HIGHLY relevant when you become a captain and have to start thinking yourself.
Did I hear "Monkey see, monkey doo"? No wonder it'll take 10 years for this poor F/O until he can start making descicions...
Doesnt matter what way you twist and turn this issue;
The total experience level of the 737/MPL is LESS than the 1000hr guy with 737 rating, or even the 200hr guy!
The allegded positive reasons;
1 "more proficient pilots"
2 takes less time to become a pilot
3 airline saves money
Only 1 of these should even be considered when training pilots. "More proficient pilots" - I dont see how this can be the case, since the standards for the MPL TR and "normal" TR is exactly the same!
The other two isn't even worth discussing...
The MPL is only a back-up solution when the airlines is short on desperate people willing to buy them selves a job...
It is apparent that the airlines have too much influence on the JAA/ICAO... FAA has said no to this, wonder why?
What you seem to forget is that you cannot compare a MPL/737 with a guy with 200hrs SEP. Once the 200hr guy have got his 737 rating, THEN we can start discussing who's the "best" pilot.
The standards for the MPL 737 rating is all the same as the "normal" 737 rating. In other words the 200hr guy is trained to the same "perfection"/proficiency as the MPL guy, but in addition he has 200hrs of real flying time, incl all the descition making etc that comes with that.
Those of you who say instructing in a 172 for 1000hrs is a waste of time, don't understand much. Most likely your one of those 200hr guys who bought yourself a job in some LCC.
Sure, flying a 172 is not too relevant for pushing buttons on the 737 or 319, but flying is not all about flying the 'bus on autopilot, but more about making decisions. And what do you base your desicions on? Knowlegde and experience. Where do you get that knowlegde and experience? By flying! So all the decsicion making and responsibilities you learn by 1000hrs in the sky, is HIGHLY relevant when you become a captain and have to start thinking yourself.
Did I hear "Monkey see, monkey doo"? No wonder it'll take 10 years for this poor F/O until he can start making descicions...
Doesnt matter what way you twist and turn this issue;
The total experience level of the 737/MPL is LESS than the 1000hr guy with 737 rating, or even the 200hr guy!
The allegded positive reasons;
1 "more proficient pilots"
2 takes less time to become a pilot
3 airline saves money
Only 1 of these should even be considered when training pilots. "More proficient pilots" - I dont see how this can be the case, since the standards for the MPL TR and "normal" TR is exactly the same!
The other two isn't even worth discussing...
The MPL is only a back-up solution when the airlines is short on desperate people willing to buy them selves a job...
It is apparent that the airlines have too much influence on the JAA/ICAO... FAA has said no to this, wonder why?
